PFF: Refocused Car-23 SF-3

[top dawg]

16 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Easy enough. Look at your responses to me. You are so interested in trying to argue and prove your point you acknowledge nothing that I said just argued. Now look at what I posted acknowledging they do use the data but do their own grading given they have more context than PFF could have since they know the playbook. Now you could have said that makes sense and I am sure they do their own grading and evaluations but also find that PFF offers a number of statistical comparisons and evaluations with their data that makes NFL evaluators more efficient so they can focus and do their evaluations quicker and move on to other things. Instead you argue I am wrong and you are right and give some twisted version of context which without the playbook and what was called they couldn't have anything close to the same context.

Where did I twist your words? I didn't. Simply disagreeing is not twisting someone words. 

Your entire response just now is just another red herring to try and prove a point that you can't. It's convoluted thinking. I shoot from the hip. Twisting words and arguing a point that is not the point is not my schtick. Perhaps you get off to that kind of thing, but I don't. Stop with the bullshit.

The thing is none of us know how they really use PFF, but knowing human nature like I do, I'm sure that PFF's grades come up in discussions and are used within some type of context. It doesn't have to be anything big or small, but just the fact that they come up means they are being used to varying degrees. If an agent is trying to manipulate them to his advantage, then of course the team is quite naturally going to try and pick apart why the "grade" is closer to fiction than fact (or vice versa). 

Again, that seems like a disagreement, or maybe we're arguing the same thing, but I have not twisted your words in any shape, form or manner. Unlike some, apparently, I can disagree without being a smart ass.

[panthers55]

3 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Where did I twist your words? I didn't. Simply disagreeing is not twisting someone words. 

Your entire response just now is just another red herring to try and prove a point that you can't. It's convoluted thinking. I shoot from the hip. Twisting words and arguing a point that is not the point is not my schtick. Perhaps you get off to that kind of thing, but I don't. Stop with the bullshit.

The thing is none of us know how they really use PFF, but knowing human nature like I do, I'm sure that PFF's grades come up in discussions and are used within some type of context. It doesn't have to be anything big or small, but just the fact that they come up means they are being used to varying degrees. If an agent is trying to manipulate them to his advantage, then of course the team is quite naturally going to try and pick apart why the "grade" is closer to fiction than fact (or vice versa). 

Again, that seems like a disagreement, or maybe we're arguing the same thing, but I have not twisted your words in any shape, form or manner. Unlike some, apparently, I can disagree without being a smart ass.

As I said you didn't acknowledge what I said which was that NFL teams have their own evaluators who have more context and knowledge about what happened. Without a diatribe- True or False. Do they have more knowledge and context? If so then why accept a cursory look and evaluation based on some of the information when they themselves possess all the context?

Then you argue a point which I already conceded which is they use the data to make their jobs easier since collecting raw data is time-consuming and not the point of their emphasis. 

Then you go off on your own red herring about my.logic being  convoluted and some speculation about how the grades are used while acknowledging you don't have a clue. Remember I didn't say how I know they are using the data,  simply they would do their own grading based on their own film review which has been publically acknowledged by Rivera and Gettleman when he was here.

So you are speculating about how they might interpret the data with no insight while I say they would rely on their own evaluations based on their own film work which is what they have said they do. Then went on to suggest that the raw data and comparison data like YAC would be useful to get from a service and doesn't really change a players evaluation.

Yet I am convoluted? Seems you are feeling attacked by others and lumping everyone in together.

[top dawg]

14 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

As I said you didn't acknowledge what I said which was that NFL teams have their own evaluators who have more context and knowledge about what happened. Without a diatribe- True or False. Do they have more knowledge and context? If so then why accept a cursory look and evaluation based on some of the information when they themselves possess all the context?

Then you argue a point which I already conceded which is they use the data to make their jobs easier since collecting raw data is time-consuming and not the point of their emphasis. 

Then you go off on your own red herring about my.logic being  convoluted and some speculation about how the grades are used while acknowledging you don't have a clue. Remember I didn't say how I know they are using the data,  simply they would do their own grading based on their own film review which has been publically acknowledged by Rivera and Gettleman when he was here.

So you are speculating about how they might interpret the data with no insight while I say they would rely on their own evaluations based on their own film work which is what they have said they do. Then went on to suggest that the raw data and comparison data like YAC would be useful to get from a service and doesn't really change a players evaluation.

Yet I am convoluted? Seems you are feeling attacked by others and lumping everyone in together.

You're the one that insinuates that I was twisting your words. I didn't. To then try and hide behind what you should have stuck to in the first place---the discussion about pff---is indeed convoluted.

I stick to my original post.

Of course a team knows its players and how they evaluate them better than anyone else. That wasn't the argument. PFF evaluates every player on every down. NFL franchises use PFF's services to offer a different perspective and things they may have missed ( I would assume especially with other players that they aren't familiar with). Read the damned article!

 

[shaqattaq]

On 9/11/2017 at 0:33 AM, Saca312 said:

Plus, the fact Star's name isn't on there is criminal. He was a huge reason for the defensive line's success.

anyone who knows football knows that Star balled out. His name is getting ready to be on the "highest paid DT's" list.

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

You're the one that insinuates that I was twisting your words. I didn't. To then try and hide behind what you should have stuck to in the first place---the discussion about pff---is indeed convoluted.

I stick to my original post.

Of course a team knows its players and how they evaluate them better than anyone else. That wasn't the argument. PFF evaluates every player on every down. NFL franchises use PFF's services to offer a different perspective and things they may have missed ( I would assume especially with other players that they aren't familiar with). Read the damned article!

 

I did read the article and followed the discussion.  You keep adding things which if you had said them in the first place might have made sense. So now teams use PFF to get insight about other teams and players not their own. Very possible. If you keep morphing your thinking we might finally agree. At least concede that any of what they get from PFF pales in comparison to what teams have to do on their own  to scout other teams by watching film and providing cutups of plays to help gameplan and prepare their players to watch film of other teams on Tuesday. The only reason they use PFF is because time windows are tight and they save time where they can to avoid even longer days preparing.

[top dawg]

4 hours ago, panthers55 said:

I did read the article and followed the discussion.  You keep adding things which if you had said them in the first place might have made sense. So now teams use PFF to get insight about other teams and players not their own. Very possible. If you keep morphing your thinking we might finally agree. At least concede that any of what they get from PFF pales in comparison to what teams have to do on their own  to scout other teams by watching film and providing cutups of plays to help gameplan and prepare their players to watch film of other teams on Tuesday. The only reason they use PFF is because time windows are tight and they save time where they can to avoid even longer days preparing.

Again, no one knows exactly why or how teams use PFF, but they do. 

I stand by my very first post in the thread, and any argument from there is basically trying to find and/or manufacture fault where there is none.

[SeoulPanther]

As much as I like stats I'm not going to pay a subscription to read them. In an amusing example of how stats can be 'false' I read an amusing thread on the 49ers forum which quoted a PFF grade on Arik Armstead. It was pretty funny to see how many 49ers fans were ridiculing the grade.

IMO, the D played well enough to win. The O is where the Lions share of the problems were.

IMO the Panthers interior pass rush was better. How does Buckner make this list and Short doesn't?

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

Again, no one knows exactly why or how teams use PFF, but they do. 

I stand by my very first post in the thread, and any argument from there is basically trying to find and/or manufacture fault where there is none.

No one tried to find fault they just pointed out the obvious while you spent the rest.of the thread justifying and backpedaling.

[top dawg]

Just now, panthers55 said:

No one tried to find fault they just pointed out the obvious while you spent the rest.of the thread justifying and backpedaling.

Backpedaling? You don't listen very well either. I would say that I'm surprised. You're generally thoughtful, but you get in your unjustifiable pissy little moments also. Whatever...

[top dawg]

@Saca312, you may fool some people, but you're not fooling me. Some of your posts are very troll-like. Now poop on that!

[panthers55]

1 minute ago, top dawg said:

Backpedaling? You don't listen very well either. I would say that I'm surprised. You're generally thoughtful, but you get in your unjustifiable pissy little moments also. Whatever...

Hard to listen when there is no soundtrack . But like usual you say one thing and mean something else which is why you have to clarify and backpedaling so much when people point out the obvious errors. And you are the emotional one here not me. Good job of projection by ascribing your emotions and feelings unto others.

[Saca312]

9 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Easy enough. Look at your responses to me. You are so interested in trying to argue and prove your point you acknowledge nothing that I said just argued.

Done that plenty of times to me. Can't even have a rational discussion with him for some reason.

i.e. I bring up Landry's flaws and why I think he's overrated. A Miami player who has no relation with this team nor any reason to be the subject of a huge freaking argument.

A certain user comes lashing in with "but PFF said!" 

I bring up visual examples to show his flaws in hopes I would begin a rational discussion. Ignores all of that and continues sticking to his holy book of PFF. Then criticizes me because I didn't stick to the narrative that Landry's the best slot in the NFL.

So yes, for users like so, I generally don't feel like exerting the effort to actually have a nice conversation when they decide to ignore anything that doesn't fit their narrative or takes the time to actually try to counter my points with decent evidence.

Still can't believe I'm witnessing someone actually arguing that teams seriously put a lot of stock in PFF grades/revolve context around said grades. Like I've never seen that lmao.

[Saca312]

8 minutes ago, top dawg said:

@Saca312, you may fool some people, but you're not fooling me. Some of your posts are very troll-like. Now poop on that!

Want poop. You get poop.

[top dawg]

The ignore function seems like a good move tonight. I'm tired of playing needless games. My Huddle experience doesn't hinge upon either one of you. Good riddance!